The Dilemma of Individuality and Rational Self-Interest: The Missing Link of Strategic Thought

Disclamier: This is a philosophical blog. All things that I discuss here are from a philosophical point of view or from an ethical point of view. For example, if I mention 'individualism', it is most likely that I'm discussing philosophical individualism rather than political individualism or economic individualism.                       

We all like happy endings. I'm using the term happy as a metaphor here. For suspense lovers, the mystery has to be unpredictable to be happy. For sentimental types, catharsis brings joy. Likewise, for individualists, The Fountainhead had a perfect happy ending.

But in reality, or in the sense of objective reality as we perceive it, is it really that simple? Fictions are beautiful lies told by a creative thinker or a realist who is imaginative.

As a staunch admirer of The Fountainhead and especially Howard Roark, the ideal protagonist of the story, it's my right to objectively analyze individualism and posit its strengths and weaknesses. After all, there are no happy endings in real life, but an end (death).

The Individual

Who is an individual? Can a formless being be called an individual? Was it created, or is it already there? I don't want to confuse you with all these arguments and cite papers (I'm not paid to do that yet!) to prove my point about what an individual could be. Yes, could be. Because no one could ever really understand an individual completely with a hundred other citations for the next hundred years.

In order to keep things simple, let's say an individual is a person who has their own independent thoughts. Fair enough.

Now what is individuality? Some trait, thought, or idea of a person? Hopefully so.

I would argue that individuality comes through knowledge echo chambers (more on it in future articles). For a person born and raised in a tribal setting, the indigenous dance of that particular tribe shapes their individuality. For a person born to a billionaire, table etiquette, the idea of money, and the finesse form their individuality.

So we can agree that whatever the things that we form or shape within ourselves as individuals, are influenced by something. And with those prior inputs, we could try to invent something different within ourselves, which could give rise to a relatively novice idea, thought, or work.

The Ayn Rand

Among many other regrets in my life, not being able to meet Ayn Rand in real life and ask questions about some of her ideas directly would be one of my major ones.

Rand mostly focused on a few ideas: objectivism, individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and so on. If you click on the links, you can delve deeper into the concepts.

A person can invent, modify, steal, or take inspiration from previous works to form a new idea that could or could not become mainstream in their lifetime. 

Rand's idea of individuality makes more sense when applied individually, but when applied collectively with rational self-interest or somehow justifying both these virtues as interconnected when reading Ayn Rand's works or putting them in the same box together could lead to a dilemma.

I'm not particularly blaming Rand here. There are many other thinkers whose ideas are contradictory when combined. After all, we are all potential human beings with Achilles' heel.

Rational Self Interest

Now speaking of rational self-interest, to put it simply, it's a part of a broad philosophy known as objectivism. Some put it bluntly that it is nothing but being selfish and exploiting things to one's own benefit.

But what if your individual ideals are against your rational self-interest or vice versa?

The Conflict

I'm one of those people who got inspired by the unflinching attitude of Howard Roark. The sheer audacity and the confidence that he instilled within me were unforgettable, and I'm sure that the guy has inspired millions. Yet, again, fictions are beautiful lies that are created to instill or invoke feelings of all the adjectives that we can think of!

In Howard's story, it is not only about the man; it is also about the situations that came along, and some were based on choices. By the end, Howard was doing relatively well. Even though he missed some opportunities, he gained few. What if the situations were totally different? What if nothing worked out? What if some people who agreed to Howard's terms didn't come along at all?

Would our hero compromise on his values in the end? Probably not. Howard would die happily starving to death without compromising himself. That is the hero.

Now in this context, what defines a rational self-interest? Is Howard's uncompromising attitude till the end a rational self-interest?

Apparently, we cannot compare these two ideas. But even if someone thinks that the uncompromising attitude is a virtue, there are millions of grumpy people all around who die without compromising with their preconceived notions. Are they all virtuous (maybe in their own way but still)? In that case, there's no right or wrong. As aforementioned, it's a gift from their culture or environment. But does it fulfill rational self-interest in terms of money, status, or wealth? Not necessarily!

Okay, I know what you are thinking now: the primary and secondary virtues of selfishness. Well, what's the use of self-reliance, integrity, and honesty if no one's going to buy your pristine idea, a carefully crafted product, or a skill? That too in the modern day when people have a lot of choices?

Privilege Is Power

A poor person's self-interest is way less than a rich person's. With more power comes more responsibility? Not again, movies! With more power comes more control. One could seem benevolent or a tyrant. It depends on the actor. The one who seems tyrant is easy to read and predictable; we know what they'll do with their power if questioned. The benevolent one is subtle; control is almost hidden; we could also be blinded by their virtuous ideas, fairness, and goodness.

When the rich person's self-interest mostly benefits them, the poor person, who is ambitious and individualistic, can only rise to power by playing politics, sometimes a very bad one. They can use some collective ideas as their weapon, not because they are fully ideologically committed to that, but rather for their own self-interest, to sabotage a powerful opponent.

The objective reality changes, or it's different for different people based on their circumstances. Some start from 0, some start from 50, and others start from -100! The irony is, sometimes something irrational like luck can change the trajectory of a person's life.

When Our Heroes Fell

My favorite hero, Howard Roark, an uncompromising architect, partners with Gail Wynand, a powerful newspaper magnate, to build the Cortlandt Homes project. Wynand's influence helps Roark secure the commission, but at what cost?

• Temporarily surrendering his creative control.
• Designing buildings that, while innovative, cater to Wynand's vision.
• Collaborating with Wynand himself is a compromise of individualistic values, as he represents the corrupt and conventional.

In Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden, a steel magnate and individualist, makes a deal with Orren Boyle, a lazy and well-connected businessperson, to secure a crucial government contract. Rearden needs the contract to keep his business afloat, but Boyle demands a share of the profits in exchange for his influence. So what are the implications?

• Benefits Boyle, who doesn't contribute to the business.
• Involves government favoritism (contrary to Rearden's anti-statist views).
• Rearden's self-reliance is undermined.
  

There could be a justification in the above two cases about why they did it; there are always justifications. From Rand's perspective, it could be the difficulty of maintaining individualism in a corrupt society.

To sum up, we can conclude that the protagonists did what they did because:

• To achieve strategic goals.
• In the long term, to protect their work and independence.

So it also means absolute individualism is not possible in the world.

Objectivist Examples Of The Real World

This was difficult for me to decipher on my own. Because among zillions of ideologies, putting people in a basket doesn't do any justice. So I searched the Internet for objectivist examples in the real world. As I had guessed (of course I did), I got some famous names like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and so on.

But the question is, did all these people read Ayn Rand? Some of them might have read her works, but did they really take inspiration from her? I don't think so.

So what is this philosophy called Objectivism? You can find out more by searching on the Internet or asking LLMs.

So let's take the example of Howard from Fountainhead. He succeeded not because he was very individualistic, but rather because he had an immense talent. He was brilliant. I have already mentioned that it's not only about the man; it's about the situations. If we try to compare Howard's character with modern-day successful people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates, they succeeded not only because they had some grand vision, but they were also talented. There is no doubt about it; full marks for the objectivists who think this way.

But in reality, it's an opportunity cost to the world, survival of the fittest. And also, how many are successful in achieving their 'grand vision' (if they had one) without a compromise, pivoting, or change in their plans due to changing circumstances in the world or to make their stakeholders happy? Almost all the successful people that I have mentioned.

In many of the sources, Peter Theil's name comes up a lot as an objectivist, but in reality, what is his creation? Nothing. Personally, no disrespect for the man, but he was in the right place, at the right time, with the right people. In turn, he made some investments, which turned out to be right! Well, some might argue that it's the risk-taking ability that some people like Elon or Peter have that makes them special, and that's why they are objectivists. But in the case of Peter Thiel, most of the money that he invested was not even his money! I agree that it was not risk-free, but if we analyze carefully, every business involves risk. But the question is, how can one convince someone to invest money in them? Not every individualist can do that without deceiving or compromising their original ideas.

There are far better programmers, or people who know more about production than Elon. But it's not only about the technical managerial skill that he possesses; he understands the system. He knows whom to talk to, how to get things done, when to play stick or carrot, and when to bend or compromise to achieve goals. If the objectivists are taking full credit for this, I don't think it makes sense.

The point is that individualistic ideals cannot thrive without conformism and compromise in the present objective reality.

Rational Self-Interest Over Individualism

Steve Woisniek was the brain and Steve Jobs was the mouth. People believed what came from the mouth, as they could not see the brain with their naked eyes. The virtues like honesty, integrity, and self-reliance don't work in one's favor all the time without deceit, politics, strategy, or, to put it bluntly, rational and tactical self-interest.

Individualism just remains as egoism or rigidity if you don't back it up with strategy. In a broader sense, it's a carefully crafted plan that will lead you to success. Even with the people who have been portrayed as objectivists, they could not have made it big without psychological manipulation, using collective force (labor), and playing their cards right at the right time. So, in this debate of two contrasting ideas, rational and tactical self-interest win over individualism.

The world doesn't remember the truest virtue of one's own individualism, but the spectacle or the story that's created around it.

Individualism as a confidence booster

The one thing that I admire about Howard is his confidence. It's audacious, it's charming, and it portrays the 'Never give up' attitude. As I mentioned earlier, what if the situations were different for Howard and he had died starving to death without achieving anything?

From Rand's point of view, if one is individualistic, somehow the opportunities will open. If I want to euphemize one in a modern context, there will be some 'target audience' who will support one's whims and fancies, but for how long?

Even in The Fountainhead, we see the ups and downs of Howard, but he still remains adamant about his views till the end. But in real life, it's just one of the possibilities that things could turn out better.

But from Howard's individualism, we can learn how to be confident and, to some extent, how to take risks. While I would argue that Howard was not taking calculated risks, he was going with the flow.

But in the real world, this false confidence could doom one's life, career, and reputation. Most importantly, doing so is irrational, and Ayn Rand is a rationalist!

But sometimes, the audacity works. It could be seen as a strong character trait. Most of the cultures around the world appreciate and celebrate boldness. In order to thrive, use it as a confidence booster when certain opportunities come along the way.

Appropriation of Strategic Thought into Rational Self-Interest

Well, my argument is simple. Without strategy, rational self-interest cannot work, and one's individualism's story cannot be glorified in history.

Even though I admire Howard Roark's story and took a lot of inspiration from the character, I would not recommend that to anyone without a strategic or tactical plan. I admire Rand for telling me this beautiful lie in a more effective way, which looks surreal when I view it through a single lens. The lens of someone articulating a story of a virtue in a fantastic way and keeping the reader at the edge of the seat.

I have used the word 'appropriation' here because I haven't seen any of Rand's work, which specifically talks about strategies for achieving rational self-interest. They are only good situations created by Rand to simulate a particular idea or thought (individualism).

Later, people might have drawn conclusions or extended what Rand might want to say, interpreting things in the way that is appropriate for particular situations.

Some quotes, such as "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" and "In any conflict between two men, the more selfless one is always the victim," seem like generic truths rather than broad explanations of strategy to prevail over societal evils such as conformity or people's apathy towards rational self-interest.

Hypothetical Yet Rational Example

A computer programmer builds software, which is essentially a product that they want to sell to the world. They are perfectionists; they take care of all the technical nitty-gritty of the software. Now, they go to an investor through 'connections' or 'networking' events. The shrewd investor is happy about the idea, and he's ready to invest, but he wants a 5% stake in the company. So the programmer gives 5% of the company and promises the investor to generate money within 6 months (or any other similar terms). Well, after 6 months, even though the product was fantastic from a technical standpoint and also a business standpoint, it could have actually provided value to the people but failed.

The determined programmer goes back to the investor and tries to explain what could have gone wrong and asks for more time. The investor tries to be benevolent and offers more time. Fast-forward to the end of more time; the product doesn't do well. Now, the investor is overtly frustrated, but covertly they have a plan. They'll tell the programmer that they are going to bring in some of his other investor friends as board of directors so that they can guide them (the programmer) through the process to achieve success.

Now the new board tells the programmer to pivot from the original idea, and they'll also invest some money in the company. Now, the programmer has no choice but to pivot the idea. The individualism got killed there.

There are a lot of real-life examples who have done such things, such as Amazon, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, PayPal, Groupon, and so on.

Banality of Evil

Whether it's the media, IT, or government, there will be favorites among superiors; only they can make them future leaders of the organization. There is no denial that for some jobs both technical and tactical intelligence are required, but eventually, people tend to choose their successors based on how likable they are. When there's that likable factor, it doesn't necessarily have to be individual integrity or values, but rather people's pleasing attitude, meaning conformity.

The Balancing Act

Can one balance individuality and rational self-interest? Many objectivists that I came across online and a few offline tend to do that. But, again, I would put that in the category of justification or appropriation. In some cases, the rich and powerful have the capacity to impose their individuality or way of thinking on the world. 

But, even with such power, they get backlash by the people, organizations, or opposite ideological gettos. They don't have to be as powerful as the powerful; they just want to raise their voice. The mere fact why this works is that the world is too big of a place, and eventually these rich and powerful people need labor to keep the countries and economies running. 

In a way, almost all sides have a significant amount of money to counter each other as there are a lot of stakeholders. For example, people like George Soros had made their life mission to push a particular set of ideas and narratives onto the world, and there are enough couteractive forces working against that.

Conclusion

There is no room for absolute individualism or the portrayal of individualism like Howard Roark's in the real world.
In order to build something successful or to achieve greatness in the modern world, it requires collective effort of some sort. But if someone wants to make a name for themselves through that collective effort and also their individual effort, they should be masters at playing political games, branding, and deception, which we can postulate to rational self-interest. But, let me remind you, rational self-interest has no place for individualism but strategy. Some have natural talents for doing that, and some acquire the skills through experience, books, or the media, and some never learn at all.